PetiteSirah

But between the two parties -- and especially in a casual sex scenario -- a woman knows FAR better than the man both (a) where she is in her cycle; (b) whether she's on birth control; and (c) what she's likely to do in the case of an accidental pregnancy.

I realize that a lot of the debate around here has been about contraception, but I am certainly not the only guy who dated a girl who didn't have a problem with premarital sex or contraception but would never have had an abortion.

chemvictim

PetiteSirah wrote:I have zero problem with the woman having all of the say over the existence and termination of the pregnancy.

What I object to his a woman's ability to essentially make a man a financial hostage.

I do remember that some of you are all about not imposing your own religious beliefs on others, especially if there's any sort of financial burden involved.

What if the woman has a one night stand, doesn't tell the man that she's very pro-life, and accidentally gets pregnant? Her "religious beliefs" -- which she may not have even disclosed -- impose a MASSIVE financial burden on the man, something that far dwarfs having to pay $9/month out of pocket for birth control.

Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

Maybe the male birth control pill or whatever else that was could alleviate some of this. I agree, that hypothetical situation sucks, but I don't know what we can do about it. If we were going to have some sort of opt-out system, how would we go about it?

To be perfectly clear, in your hypo, BOTH parties are held responsible. For example, if I was the pro-life drunk chick in your example (what a laugh) and had the baby, I'd be just as financially responsible as my frat boy lover. The medical bills would also be mine. Chances are damn good I'd be stuck with most of the care, as well. There is no good solution, as far as I can tell. Ladies, the IUD is your friend. Men, go get that testicle injection. Or whatever it was. lol

joelsisk

chemvictim wrote:I get that. It makes me a little queasy though, that some people (teachers?) are held to such a standard that they are ALWAYS in uniform, ALWAYS "representing the brand," ALWAYS subject to judgment. You probably wouldn't want that for yourself, would you?

cmaldoon

rpm wrote:I presume, then, you would be fine with the father not having any financial responsibility if the mother lied about birth control....

which does happen. A story not for the boards, but I assure you it happens.

Absolutely NOT. If you play the game you take all risks on board. This includes failed contraception and also deceit. Unless the man and the woman sign a contract (possibly notarized) stipulating that he has no say or responsibility, I expect the man to an up. It is in part His decision.

cmaldoon

bhodilee wrote:I wouldn't. Again, the guy knew that even with BC it was possible, or that however remote, she may have been lying, or not lying but missed a day or had taken antibiotics and didn't know they rendered the BC useless (I almost got caught up in that one once). If you have sex, you know, you absolutely know, unless you're an pollster, that a baby is possible. You weigh that risk and you decide to go forward or not based on how agreeable to that risk you are. Personally, my mantra was, I wouldn't sleep with someone I couldn't see as being part of my life for at least 18 years.

cmaldoon

PetiteSirah wrote:The woman knows FAR more about her realistic likelihood of getting pregnant than does the man. The parties do not have symmetrical information.

When you gamble, you should take into account what you know and don't know as well as the likelihood of truth in those things. The man knows less and some of what he "knows" may not be true. It's a gamble and you have to pay up if you lose. (Or win if you were hoping for that outcome)

I will not excuse my half of the gene pool from their responsibility just because we don't know as much ;-)

cmaldoon

PetiteSirah wrote:...
Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

You say that the man is held "completely responsible" I would say that that is untrue. The man is half responsible. It takes two. He should bear half of the burden of raising that child. This includes food, shelter, and childcare.

As for knowing the outcomes... When was the last time you saw a slot machine that told you your odds of winning and/or the %of money you put in you should expect to get back on average? We live in a world of incomplete information.

Sometimes we can legislate in more information, sometimes it is simply to difficult or onerous to do so. You don't KNOW but should be willing to take responsibility for a child you created. If you are unwilling, you should abstain.

(I don't mean to target YOU specifically, it is simply easier to type directly to you in second person than to transpose the entire argument into generalities)

jawlz

Not sure I like states releasing that information. It opens up the argument that the various states clerks (or whatever the appropriate function is)offices are trying to discourage voting by showing significant margins one way or the other.

Not sure that I would actually buy that argument, but I can certainly see it being made.

bhodilee

chemvictim wrote:I get that. It makes me a little queasy though, that some people (teachers?) are held to such a standard that they are ALWAYS in uniform, ALWAYS "representing the brand," ALWAYS subject to judgment. You probably wouldn't want that for yourself, would you?

Which is precisely why I'm not a teacher. Some professions are judged round the clock, fairly or otherwise, cop, fireman, teacher. All held to a higher standard. You pretty much know that going in. You accept that as part of the job.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

PetiteSirah wrote:The woman knows FAR more about her realistic likelihood of getting pregnant than does the man. The parties do not have symmetrical information.

yawn. If she trapped you, she trapped you in a pit, in a well lit room, with a guard rail, and a flashing sign over the pit that says CAUTION, TRAP, I WOULD HIGHLY ADVISE AGAINST CLIMBING THE GUARD RAIL AND FALLING INTO THE PIT.

If you still choose fall into the pit, then you deserve anything that happens.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

PetiteSirah wrote:I have zero problem with the woman having all of the say over the existence and termination of the pregnancy.

What I object to his a woman's ability to essentially make a man a financial hostage.

I do remember that some of you are all about not imposing your own religious beliefs on others, especially if there's any sort of financial burden involved.

What if the woman has a one night stand, doesn't tell the man that she's very pro-life, and accidentally gets pregnant? Her "religious beliefs" -- which she may not have even disclosed -- impose a MASSIVE financial burden on the man, something that far dwarfs having to pay $9/month out of pocket for birth control.

Yes, the man "chooses to play". But so does the woman -- and she's the one who knows her body and her mind far better than he does. And unfortunately, as with drunken hookups on campus, one party can be held completely responsible for the events and their outcome, all at the option of the other party.

Dont' buy the impaired judgment argument either. You can choose to get drunk or not, if bad promises happens because you purposefully impaired yourself, you need to live with those consequences.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

PetiteSirah wrote:The Ohio results are VERY bad news for Obama. His margin of victory in '08 was 262K votes, which was substantially less than his early voting margin.

The news about Ohio seems to comport with this, which shows that just from the early voting numbers, Obama's 2008 margin in Ohio is GONE.

Oh, and Romney's up by 19 among independents?

Yup, color it red.

I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

bhodilee

Stupid question. What happens to the money if a campaign has any left after tomorrow? Can the candidate donate it? Does it go back to the donors? Do they get to keep it? I'd run for president, get a bunch of donations and then run on the cheap and keep it all!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

PetiteSirah

bhodilee wrote:Stupid question. What happens to the money if a campaign has any left after tomorrow? Can the candidate donate it? Does it go back to the donors? Do they get to keep it? I'd run for president, get a bunch of donations and then run on the cheap and keep it all!

They typically give it to the xNC or pay off the debts of other campaigns of their friends, etc.

chemvictim

PetiteSirah wrote:The Ohio results are VERY bad news for Obama. His margin of victory in '08 was 262K votes, which was substantially less than his early voting margin.

The news about Ohio seems to comport with this, which shows that just from the early voting numbers, Obama's 2008 margin in Ohio is GONE.

Oh, and Romney's up by 19 among independents?

Yup, color it red.

It will be an exciting finish, no matter what. I don't really feel that strongly about it either way.

I read that they're having insanely long lines for early voting in Ohio and Florida. Hopefully that will not be the case tomorrow. Surely nobody thinks it's good to force voters to stand in line for 8 hours, no matter which party they're for. Not everyone is as fortunate as we are and can take a whole day off.

For my part, I had a perfectly easy first-time voting experience here. I stood in line probably 45 minutes or so, but it was inside and comfortable. I almost froze my tail off in '08 in Indiana, outside. And my guy didn't win. lol

rjquillin

bhodilee wrote:I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

You make me feel like a fossil. I still vividly remember "I-like-Ike" buttons and staying up well past my bedtime listening to results come in...

cmaldoon

bhodilee wrote:I'm giddy for tomorrow night. I always stay up and watch until a winner is declared. I've been obsessed with it since 1984(83 I guess) when I was a little kid and listened to the radio all night and tried to visualize the map. I even had a puzzle of US states and I'd put the state in it's place as it was called. It was the most exciting thing ever! I was 7 in 1983.

I was......not..... In '83

I remember the elementary school joke: Why don't they let dogs in the White House? because they'd pee on the Bushes and chase the Quayles.

bhodilee

cmaldoon wrote:Absolutely NOT. If you play the game you take all risks on board. This includes failed contraception and also deceit. Unless the man and the woman sign a contract (possibly notarized) stipulating that he has no say or responsibility, I expect the man to an up. It is in part His decision.

I have read, but cannot confirm that NBA players actually have a contract exactly like that. I doubt it's notarized, but they get the groupies to sign it. Probably wouldn't hold up in a family court, but I've heard this exact thing exists. Kobe Bryants contract uses radically different language

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

rpm

edlada wrote:I have a McCarthy button from '68 and my favorite, a button that says "Nixon Eats Lettuce" from the United Farm Workers/Cesar Chavez lettuce boycott time. Ahh, those sere the days!

I still have some Goldwater buttons. I had a can of "AuH2O" ginger ale, but my wife tossed it in a cleaning binge some years ago.

Can't say I'm at all a fan of Chavez and the UFW - our family has some rather unpleasant history with them. My cousins had to ride to school in an armored limousine because the UFW were busy throwing rocks at them. I remember seeing all of the dents and the nicks in the glass. Worse, contrary to the Chavez claims, we actually provided all of the workers at the winery and the permanent field staff with the same health insurance policy that covered the whole family, from my great uncle as chairman on down. Chavez wanted us to give that up for all the employees, and pay the money over the UFW. My great uncle (whose Spanish was better than Chavez', as he used to point out) told him he'd faced down Pancho Villa and he'd be damned if he would give his workers to Chavez....

MarkDaSpark

Did my duty ... however, some pollster thought it would be a good idea to redo the lot for the Community Center this week. The whole lot is dirt and coned off. Plus, today is street sweeping day.

Do I hear Voter Suppression anyone?

By the way, there are like 5 precincts inside there.

x20

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

jawlz

kylemittskus wrote:Are any supreme court justices realistically going to retire in the next 4 years?

Ginsburg is 79, so I would say the chances of her stepping down (especially given an Obama re-election) are pretty high. Then there's Kennedy and Scalia who are also up their in age (I believe both are 76), though I don't know that either will be retiring in the next 4 years.

jawlz

bhodilee wrote:I am currently listening to literally, the stupidest person I know, opine about politics. It is singlehandedly making me want to vote for Obama.

Arguments that go along the line of 'such-and-such is an pollster, and supports XYZ, and therefore I'm against XYZ' really bother me when they're made sincerely (as they often are).

*If* you are going to judge a candidate or a policy by its supporters, then you should probably look to see first if there are intelligent and respected people who sincerely support that candidate or policy. In all likelihood there are intelligent people on both sides, and we should be considering that instead of just looking at the lowest common denominator of any single side's support group. There are pollsters and crazies out there that will attach themselves any idea out there, through no fault of the idea itself.

edit - yay woot filter. It substituted "Pollsters" for another word that I used that meant people of limited intelligence.

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:Did my duty ... however, some pollster thought it would be a good idea to redo the lot for the Community Center this week. The whole lot is dirt and coned off. Plus, today is street sweeping day.

Do I hear Voter Suppression anyone?

By the way, there are like 5 precincts inside there.

Oh, it's definitely voter suppression. I can't figure out which party would seek to suppress the street sweeper-fearing voters.

bhodilee

jawlz wrote:Arguments that go along the line of 'such-and-such is an pollster, and supports XYZ, and therefore I'm against XYZ' really bother me when they're made sincerely (as they often are).

*If* you are going to judge a candidate or a policy by its supporters, then you should probably look to see first if there are intelligent and respected people who sincerely support that candidate or policy. In all likelihood there are intelligent people on both sides, and we should be considering that instead of just looking at the lowest common denominator of any single side's support group. There are pollsters and crazies out there that will attach themselves any idea out there, through no fault of the idea itself.

edit - yay woot filter. It substituted "Pollsters" for another word that I used that meant people of limited intelligence.

You don't understand the level of dislike at play here. While I don't actively wish this person harm, I wouldn't be sad if they came to harm. Plus, I hate listening to stupid people talk about anything, much less something they can't possibly comprehend.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.